FA+
Shop
North Korean Documentary about Propaganda in the US
General | Posted 12 years agoMay be disturbing to some: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkRT3C1mGRM
updated link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl5hHazNJcE
updated link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl5hHazNJcE
Ruin your day.
General | Posted 13 years agoZe Debate?
General | Posted 14 years agoPlanning a little event before the next end of the world. I was contacted by Atheist Furs and it seems like they want a debate!
Is it possible that perhaps this time we will reach a resolution rather than compromise in the grey areas of our intellect we are often too overwhelmed or just too damn egoistic to explore. Lets try something different.
***
So you want a "DEBATE?" ok:
1. Atheists, pick a religion, you are now a believer.
2. Christians and people of other faiths: You are now atheist.
All comments start with: example "atheist>Christian" or "Islamic>atheist" just to keep things clear about who's who.
Now argue your new point of view, I dare you.
http://explodingdog.com/title/letst.....isoutside.html
Is it possible that perhaps this time we will reach a resolution rather than compromise in the grey areas of our intellect we are often too overwhelmed or just too damn egoistic to explore. Lets try something different.
***
So you want a "DEBATE?" ok:
1. Atheists, pick a religion, you are now a believer.
2. Christians and people of other faiths: You are now atheist.
All comments start with: example "atheist>Christian" or "Islamic>atheist" just to keep things clear about who's who.
Now argue your new point of view, I dare you.
http://explodingdog.com/title/letst.....isoutside.html
Philosofurs - Zeitgeist
General | Posted 14 years agoZeitgeist [ˈtsaɪt.gaɪst] - The general set of ideas, beliefs, feelings, etc. which is typical of a particular period in history. - Cambridge Dictionaries Online"spirit of the times"***"You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." -Morpheus (The Matrix)BLUE PILL RED PILLPhilosofurs - Featured Submission Commission :3
General | Posted 14 years agoHello,
I have decided a little while back that I wanted to commission a FurAffinity artist to make a featured submission for this group! It'll hopefully be a full color artwork and the artist will be paid $50-$60 for their efforts. :3
I would like to ask you watchers if you have some ideas on what this commission should be like and if you could perhaps recommend some good artists! :D
EDIT:
OH! Forgot to mention, we are going to be doing a VOTE on this in just a little while!
Cheers!
I have decided a little while back that I wanted to commission a FurAffinity artist to make a featured submission for this group! It'll hopefully be a full color artwork and the artist will be paid $50-$60 for their efforts. :3
I would like to ask you watchers if you have some ideas on what this commission should be like and if you could perhaps recommend some good artists! :D
EDIT:
OH! Forgot to mention, we are going to be doing a VOTE on this in just a little while!
Cheers!
Philosofurs - St Anslem's Ontological Argument
General | Posted 14 years agoAn essay which examines an argument supporting the existence of God. :3
Is there a God? That's the question that many philosophers and scientists have asked over the centuries. Newton thought that there was proof of God's existence and that his existence was evident from the complexity of creation--he believed that this universe was intelligently designed. This man, Newton, who invented calculus and worked on what we now call Newtonian physics and discovered gravity was a creationist. Interestingly , this man at one point calculated that the earth was six thousand years old by calculating the ages of people in the Bible. Though, perhaps we can forgive him since his knowledge of fossils and carbon dating were somewhat limited.
Many learned people in the history of our world have believed that there is a God for various reasons and have various reason for believing in Him--but one of the more curious aspects of this took root sort of during the middle ages with St Thomas Aquinas but most pronounced in this day and age is that God is somehow provable, rather as though God were some sort of scientific hypothesis that can be described in a lab. The arguments that people use to argue for His existence usually fall on philosophical grounds rather than scientific ones. These arguments are:
As in the last piece I touched on the latter two arguments, now I shall speak on the first listed.
The ontological argument was proposed by St. Anslem writing ca. 1077-1078 believed that the existence of God could be deriven from his very nature--that is that understanding the concept of God would prove God's existence. The outline of his belief begins with the notion that things exist in two ways--either in our thoughts or in our thoughts and in reality. You can think of a chair and it exists in thought, and a chair also exists in reality. On the other hand, you can imagine entire universes--such as in books like The Lord of the Rings--that exist only in thought and not in reality. The second piece of his frame work is that it is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding--his words, not mine. Essentially saying that it is greater to exist in reality than in thought (understanding) alone.
Anything that might be called great is something that exists in either the mind or both the mind and reality; however, one can imagine eating a strawberry, but better than imagining eating one would be to actually eat one--it is better to exist in reality than in the understanding.There is no good thing that you could imagine that would not be made better by having it actually happen or have the object you're imagining actually exist.
Now we move on to the understanding of God and strip down and simplify a definition of Him--In his argument, St. Anslem defines God as "The greatest conceivable being," which I'm sure that many Christians, Muslims, and Jews as well as people from many other non-Western traditions might agree with. God is the greatest conceivable being. Thus, given that,
Why does it follow that God must exist? Because if,
Thus, if God exists only in the understanding--only in thought--then He cannot be the greatest; and this, says Anslem, is a contradiction of the very nature of God.
There are many different ways of analysing and understanding this argument and arguments against it move in many different directions. One of the best counter arguments to this argument that I'd heard was that of Guanilo, and Italian monk who came across Anslem's argument and disagreed. And formulated his "Perfect Island" scenario. Imagine, says Guanilo, the world's most perfect island. Imagine all the fruits, all the beach, all the sand. Imagine all the elements of perfection that would make this island the greatest best island in the world.Next, says Guanilo, let us apply Anslem's logic. Given that:
Because it is the greatest conceivable island and to be the greatest it must exist--the island must therefore exist somewhere out there. The evident problem, says Guanilo, is that through this method, if what Anslem's saying is actually true, it should be possible to quite literally define just about anything into existence merely by adding into the definition that it is the greatest to that it is the best.
St. Anslem would ask, then, whether things are or are not greater when they actually exist? This is itself debatable--the Holocaust: was this better in reality or existing only in Hitler's brain? Sometimes, reality sucks and things that exist in the real world ought to be better. It is therefor not necessarily true that it is better to exist in reality than in the understanding.
Another counterargument posed by St. Thomas Aquinas is that not all people define God the same way. God might be, if you strip down the definition of God, the greatest conceivable being but not all people value the same qualities as greatness. In other words, people have different opinions concerning what would make God great in the same way that I'm sure we all have similar yet differing ideas of what would make Guanilo's Perfect Island perfect.
These are just a few of the counter arguments, and Anslem has a few answers to these criticism, however if I don't stop somewhere I could end up detailing an entire fictional argument. Sufficient is that you now know of St. Anslem's ontological argument and understand the concepts behind it. If there are any questions, please feel free to leave it in the comment section.
St Anslem's Ontological ArgumentBy 
Gato909Is there a God? That's the question that many philosophers and scientists have asked over the centuries. Newton thought that there was proof of God's existence and that his existence was evident from the complexity of creation--he believed that this universe was intelligently designed. This man, Newton, who invented calculus and worked on what we now call Newtonian physics and discovered gravity was a creationist. Interestingly , this man at one point calculated that the earth was six thousand years old by calculating the ages of people in the Bible. Though, perhaps we can forgive him since his knowledge of fossils and carbon dating were somewhat limited.
Many learned people in the history of our world have believed that there is a God for various reasons and have various reason for believing in Him--but one of the more curious aspects of this took root sort of during the middle ages with St Thomas Aquinas but most pronounced in this day and age is that God is somehow provable, rather as though God were some sort of scientific hypothesis that can be described in a lab. The arguments that people use to argue for His existence usually fall on philosophical grounds rather than scientific ones. These arguments are:
-The Ontological Argument
-The Argument from Design
-The argument from first Cause.As in the last piece I touched on the latter two arguments, now I shall speak on the first listed.
The ontological argument was proposed by St. Anslem writing ca. 1077-1078 believed that the existence of God could be deriven from his very nature--that is that understanding the concept of God would prove God's existence. The outline of his belief begins with the notion that things exist in two ways--either in our thoughts or in our thoughts and in reality. You can think of a chair and it exists in thought, and a chair also exists in reality. On the other hand, you can imagine entire universes--such as in books like The Lord of the Rings--that exist only in thought and not in reality. The second piece of his frame work is that it is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding--his words, not mine. Essentially saying that it is greater to exist in reality than in thought (understanding) alone.
Anything that might be called great is something that exists in either the mind or both the mind and reality; however, one can imagine eating a strawberry, but better than imagining eating one would be to actually eat one--it is better to exist in reality than in the understanding.There is no good thing that you could imagine that would not be made better by having it actually happen or have the object you're imagining actually exist.
Now we move on to the understanding of God and strip down and simplify a definition of Him--In his argument, St. Anslem defines God as "The greatest conceivable being," which I'm sure that many Christians, Muslims, and Jews as well as people from many other non-Western traditions might agree with. God is the greatest conceivable being. Thus, given that,
1) It is better to exist in reality than in thought alone, and that
2) God is the greatest conceivable being, it follows that
3) God exists.Why does it follow that God must exist? Because if,
1) It is better to exist in reality than in thought alone and
2) God exists in thought alone, then
3) God is NOT the greatest conceivable being, by definition.Thus, if God exists only in the understanding--only in thought--then He cannot be the greatest; and this, says Anslem, is a contradiction of the very nature of God.
::COUNTERARGUMENTS::There are many different ways of analysing and understanding this argument and arguments against it move in many different directions. One of the best counter arguments to this argument that I'd heard was that of Guanilo, and Italian monk who came across Anslem's argument and disagreed. And formulated his "Perfect Island" scenario. Imagine, says Guanilo, the world's most perfect island. Imagine all the fruits, all the beach, all the sand. Imagine all the elements of perfection that would make this island the greatest best island in the world.Next, says Guanilo, let us apply Anslem's logic. Given that:
1) It is better to exist in reality, than in the understanding and that
2) This island is the greatest conceivable island it follows that
3) This island must existBecause it is the greatest conceivable island and to be the greatest it must exist--the island must therefore exist somewhere out there. The evident problem, says Guanilo, is that through this method, if what Anslem's saying is actually true, it should be possible to quite literally define just about anything into existence merely by adding into the definition that it is the greatest to that it is the best.
St. Anslem would ask, then, whether things are or are not greater when they actually exist? This is itself debatable--the Holocaust: was this better in reality or existing only in Hitler's brain? Sometimes, reality sucks and things that exist in the real world ought to be better. It is therefor not necessarily true that it is better to exist in reality than in the understanding.
Another counterargument posed by St. Thomas Aquinas is that not all people define God the same way. God might be, if you strip down the definition of God, the greatest conceivable being but not all people value the same qualities as greatness. In other words, people have different opinions concerning what would make God great in the same way that I'm sure we all have similar yet differing ideas of what would make Guanilo's Perfect Island perfect.
These are just a few of the counter arguments, and Anslem has a few answers to these criticism, however if I don't stop somewhere I could end up detailing an entire fictional argument. Sufficient is that you now know of St. Anslem's ontological argument and understand the concepts behind it. If there are any questions, please feel free to leave it in the comment section.
Philosofurs - Arguments for God and Their Flaws
General | Posted 14 years agoThis is a noteworthy essay which addresses the logical arguments for and against the existence of God and provides a valuable insight into the matter.
The question of God is a question that philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer for centuries. The back and forth of arguments both for and against are staggering, though many arguments for His existence have a hole, however tiny, that leaves room for doubt as to the soundness of the argument. Of these arguments, one that has been championed by theologians, and arguably the most famous of these arguments, is the argument from design. Objections have been raised to it, and rightfully so. It takes many things for granted that cannot be assumed when speaking about and addressing the natural world; however, the argument goes on, and many who understand this to be a sound, cohesive explication of the existence of God have their responses to these criticisms which will here be addressed. It remains that the argument from design for the existence of God cannot give a conclusive answer as to this question.
The argument from design the existence of God, in a Western sense through the observation that life on earth, the complexity of the universe, too complex for it to have come out of blind nature. It argues that the complexity of the universe is so great that it must have been designed by a supreme being, and this is known to be God. All things in the human realm have a maker, take for instance a computer—the computer is complex, holds together vital information, makes calculations, and organises data. The computer also has a designer, and one, coming upon a computer, would naturally infer that it had a designer. Therefore, the universe, being much more complex and expansive than a computer, would have also a designer. That the universe has a designer is implied from its complexity—and this, the argument insists, is God. This argument also rests upon part of another argument in order to support its view, and that is the argument from first cause.
The argument from first cause rests on the notion that an infinite regress is impossible—that things have a source—cause—and cannot have a set of causes that stretch back in time infinitely. This argument becomes important later as it seems to anticipate an objection raised to the argument from design, which will be explained in a moment; the argument from first cause is linked to the argument from design and this should cause no surprise as the theologian proposed the former also proposed the latter. Both of these arguments look to the natural world for proof of the existence of a supernatural being—the first argument from its complexity and the latter from the idea that all things have a maker, a first cause, which started the ball rolling. The two views differ in that the argument from design makes an analogy between the universe and the world of manmade things; the argument from first cause notes that all things have a start somewhere —that is, one thing always leads to another thing—and that there cannot be an infinite regress and that there must therefore be a first cause: call it, “God.”
The view is flawed for many reasons. David Hume, in his view, notes the weak analogy comparing the universe to manmade objects. Hume’s objection carefully points out that the universe is in a constant evolutionary process. Hume, rather, likens the universe to an animal, saying that the universe came from another, parent universe. The animal is complex: it has cells, it thinks, moves, and is able to communicate; but it has a creator: its parent. If, according to Hume, we were to take into consideration the possibility of the existence of a supreme being, it, being complex, well ordered, must also have a creator. If from design it can be inferred that there is a creator God which started the whole thing, then there must also be, for this divine being, a creator.
It is also quite possible to entertain that there’s more than one God. If we observe a house, says Hume, we would see that it requires more than one builder. Since he universe is much more complex than a house, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there might have been more than one supreme being, more than one god, which aided in the construction of the universe. The clear and obvious objection to this stance would be to say that God, being the supreme, omnipotent being, would have been more than capable in His omnipotence to create, by Himself a universe as complex as the one we live in.
This leads, however, to the last of Hume’s arguments that will be talked in this essay which insists that God is either perfect (here referring to the Western interpretation of God as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient) or such a god doesn’t exist. He argues that God lacks, in a substantial way, the qualities which make him perfect and does so from the understanding that the universe is not perfect. If the universe is imperfect, it might imply that God made a mistake or was somehow incapable of making a perfect universe. If He felt to make a perfect universe, but failed, he cannot be perfect—specifically, He cannot be all powerful. It stands to reason that a good god would wish to make a perfect universe, and having failed in the attempt, must somehow lack the ability to have made it, that is, assuming that such a god is all good and would have wanted to make a perfect universe and that it had the knowledge to do so. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)
Objections to the above argument move in a few directions, and can be explained away by theologians. Often used is the notion that perfection is subjective. “Who are we,” they say, “to decide what is perfect and what is not?” Another detracting argument, though answering the question of the problem of evil, can also be applied to this argument which posits that this world is “the best of all possible worlds”. The argument explains that this world, this universe, is the best that God could have made, given that one: only God is perfect; and two: that creating a universe as perfect would be His creating more of himself since only he himself is perfect. Therefore, in His omnibenevolence, He would have desired to create a world with the least amount of evil. Thus, given the antecedents—that God is all good, all perfect, and incapable of creating a completely perfect universe without creating more of Himself—He created the best of all possible worlds when he made this universe, this planet, this earth.
My take and criticism of the criticism of the criticism of the argument is this: There is an inherent contradiction in the definition of God. The definition of God, in Western terms, is that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. If God is all powerful, then He is capable of doing and creating whatever he likes. The immediate criticism of this definition comes in the form of a question: Could God create a stone so large that He Himself could not lift it? Immediately, the paradox is apparent in His inability to perform an action. The same criticism applies to the best of all possible worlds scenario. Could God create a perfect universe? If the answer is no, then God is not all powerful. Is God able to navigate paradox and contradiction? Can God create a square circle? If He’s all powerful, He should be able to. All powerful means all powerful, and if we add also to the above definition the notion of God’s limitlessness, also a feature of God’s in many Western traditions, then there should be nothing beyond His ability.
If God is incapable of creating a perfect universe for whatever reason, and He is also a loving, onibenevolent god, and his choices were to create a universe with such evil and horror in it as ours has or not create one at all, He should have simply not created it. What kind of a loving and compassionate God, who is as loving as the religious claim to be, sit and watch the torture, the war, the death, the destruction of this world and come to the conclusion that this was at all good? What kind of all loving god can permit any kind of evil? If, as they say, God is so far above us in terms of morals, in terms of justice, in terms of doing good and loving others, how much more does he feel for the suffering of people than I do? How much more sorrow would such a god feel? How much disgust and outright horror? If, being a human, such things offend my conscience, how much more would these things offend the sensibilities of the God described by Western religions?
The conclusion must be, following the logic, that such a God cannot exist, and if He does, He is so far outside the bounds of logic and reason, that such a God would never be logically understood. The fact remains, however, that given the definition of God given by those in the Western tradition, it is incongruent with what we see in the world around us.
Arguments for God and Their FlawsBy Gato909The question of God is a question that philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer for centuries. The back and forth of arguments both for and against are staggering, though many arguments for His existence have a hole, however tiny, that leaves room for doubt as to the soundness of the argument. Of these arguments, one that has been championed by theologians, and arguably the most famous of these arguments, is the argument from design. Objections have been raised to it, and rightfully so. It takes many things for granted that cannot be assumed when speaking about and addressing the natural world; however, the argument goes on, and many who understand this to be a sound, cohesive explication of the existence of God have their responses to these criticisms which will here be addressed. It remains that the argument from design for the existence of God cannot give a conclusive answer as to this question.
The argument from design the existence of God, in a Western sense through the observation that life on earth, the complexity of the universe, too complex for it to have come out of blind nature. It argues that the complexity of the universe is so great that it must have been designed by a supreme being, and this is known to be God. All things in the human realm have a maker, take for instance a computer—the computer is complex, holds together vital information, makes calculations, and organises data. The computer also has a designer, and one, coming upon a computer, would naturally infer that it had a designer. Therefore, the universe, being much more complex and expansive than a computer, would have also a designer. That the universe has a designer is implied from its complexity—and this, the argument insists, is God. This argument also rests upon part of another argument in order to support its view, and that is the argument from first cause.
The argument from first cause rests on the notion that an infinite regress is impossible—that things have a source—cause—and cannot have a set of causes that stretch back in time infinitely. This argument becomes important later as it seems to anticipate an objection raised to the argument from design, which will be explained in a moment; the argument from first cause is linked to the argument from design and this should cause no surprise as the theologian proposed the former also proposed the latter. Both of these arguments look to the natural world for proof of the existence of a supernatural being—the first argument from its complexity and the latter from the idea that all things have a maker, a first cause, which started the ball rolling. The two views differ in that the argument from design makes an analogy between the universe and the world of manmade things; the argument from first cause notes that all things have a start somewhere —that is, one thing always leads to another thing—and that there cannot be an infinite regress and that there must therefore be a first cause: call it, “God.”
The view is flawed for many reasons. David Hume, in his view, notes the weak analogy comparing the universe to manmade objects. Hume’s objection carefully points out that the universe is in a constant evolutionary process. Hume, rather, likens the universe to an animal, saying that the universe came from another, parent universe. The animal is complex: it has cells, it thinks, moves, and is able to communicate; but it has a creator: its parent. If, according to Hume, we were to take into consideration the possibility of the existence of a supreme being, it, being complex, well ordered, must also have a creator. If from design it can be inferred that there is a creator God which started the whole thing, then there must also be, for this divine being, a creator.
It is also quite possible to entertain that there’s more than one God. If we observe a house, says Hume, we would see that it requires more than one builder. Since he universe is much more complex than a house, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there might have been more than one supreme being, more than one god, which aided in the construction of the universe. The clear and obvious objection to this stance would be to say that God, being the supreme, omnipotent being, would have been more than capable in His omnipotence to create, by Himself a universe as complex as the one we live in.
This leads, however, to the last of Hume’s arguments that will be talked in this essay which insists that God is either perfect (here referring to the Western interpretation of God as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient) or such a god doesn’t exist. He argues that God lacks, in a substantial way, the qualities which make him perfect and does so from the understanding that the universe is not perfect. If the universe is imperfect, it might imply that God made a mistake or was somehow incapable of making a perfect universe. If He felt to make a perfect universe, but failed, he cannot be perfect—specifically, He cannot be all powerful. It stands to reason that a good god would wish to make a perfect universe, and having failed in the attempt, must somehow lack the ability to have made it, that is, assuming that such a god is all good and would have wanted to make a perfect universe and that it had the knowledge to do so. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)
Objections to the above argument move in a few directions, and can be explained away by theologians. Often used is the notion that perfection is subjective. “Who are we,” they say, “to decide what is perfect and what is not?” Another detracting argument, though answering the question of the problem of evil, can also be applied to this argument which posits that this world is “the best of all possible worlds”. The argument explains that this world, this universe, is the best that God could have made, given that one: only God is perfect; and two: that creating a universe as perfect would be His creating more of himself since only he himself is perfect. Therefore, in His omnibenevolence, He would have desired to create a world with the least amount of evil. Thus, given the antecedents—that God is all good, all perfect, and incapable of creating a completely perfect universe without creating more of Himself—He created the best of all possible worlds when he made this universe, this planet, this earth.
My take and criticism of the criticism of the criticism of the argument is this: There is an inherent contradiction in the definition of God. The definition of God, in Western terms, is that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. If God is all powerful, then He is capable of doing and creating whatever he likes. The immediate criticism of this definition comes in the form of a question: Could God create a stone so large that He Himself could not lift it? Immediately, the paradox is apparent in His inability to perform an action. The same criticism applies to the best of all possible worlds scenario. Could God create a perfect universe? If the answer is no, then God is not all powerful. Is God able to navigate paradox and contradiction? Can God create a square circle? If He’s all powerful, He should be able to. All powerful means all powerful, and if we add also to the above definition the notion of God’s limitlessness, also a feature of God’s in many Western traditions, then there should be nothing beyond His ability.
If God is incapable of creating a perfect universe for whatever reason, and He is also a loving, onibenevolent god, and his choices were to create a universe with such evil and horror in it as ours has or not create one at all, He should have simply not created it. What kind of a loving and compassionate God, who is as loving as the religious claim to be, sit and watch the torture, the war, the death, the destruction of this world and come to the conclusion that this was at all good? What kind of all loving god can permit any kind of evil? If, as they say, God is so far above us in terms of morals, in terms of justice, in terms of doing good and loving others, how much more does he feel for the suffering of people than I do? How much more sorrow would such a god feel? How much disgust and outright horror? If, being a human, such things offend my conscience, how much more would these things offend the sensibilities of the God described by Western religions?
The conclusion must be, following the logic, that such a God cannot exist, and if He does, He is so far outside the bounds of logic and reason, that such a God would never be logically understood. The fact remains, however, that given the definition of God given by those in the Western tradition, it is incongruent with what we see in the world around us.
Good News!
General | Posted 14 years agoTomorrow is the day to talk about our first member submission by Gato909
A wonderful first step that will hopefully promote some good conversation! It will be in the form of a journal posted tomorrow at 3 pm US (eastern)
I hope you will enjoy! :3
Gato909 A wonderful first step that will hopefully promote some good conversation! It will be in the form of a journal posted tomorrow at 3 pm US (eastern)
I hope you will enjoy! :3
Watchers?
General | Posted 14 years agoWatchers, any good topics on your minds?
AND the world didn't end.
General | Posted 14 years agoJalleluyah!
NOW BACK TO TORNADOES AND EARTHQUAKES!
NOW BACK TO TORNADOES AND EARTHQUAKES!
The End is Tomorrow
General | Posted 14 years agoHello, welcome to the 
philosofurs journal number whatever, I am your host jaggy. YAY applause applause, thankyou thankyou.
Id like to take a moment to acknowledge a message from family radio and its owner Harold Camping, saying this world shall end on May 21 2011. This man spent millions of dollars putting up 2,000 + very crazy looking billboards all over the United States and other parts of the world - advertizing yet another warning of apocalypse! Now that this magical date is so close lets watch and see what happens. :3
Harold Camping is a respectable owner of over 67 radio stations worldwide with assets valued over $110 million! He says he studied the Bible for 50 years and has calculated doom for the world. He is absolutely 100% certain in his predictions and is apparently willing to risk it all.
This journal is dedicated, for those who are reading, to discussion on this topic. I think that it may be of value to discuss a certain truth about this whole hype - some people really WANT the world to end, and the philosofurs question of the day is of course WHYYYYYYYYY????? <3<3<3
More Info:
http://www.wecanknow.com/
http://www.familyradio.com/
philosofurs journal number whatever, I am your host jaggy. YAY applause applause, thankyou thankyou.Id like to take a moment to acknowledge a message from family radio and its owner Harold Camping, saying this world shall end on May 21 2011. This man spent millions of dollars putting up 2,000 + very crazy looking billboards all over the United States and other parts of the world - advertizing yet another warning of apocalypse! Now that this magical date is so close lets watch and see what happens. :3
Harold Camping is a respectable owner of over 67 radio stations worldwide with assets valued over $110 million! He says he studied the Bible for 50 years and has calculated doom for the world. He is absolutely 100% certain in his predictions and is apparently willing to risk it all.
This journal is dedicated, for those who are reading, to discussion on this topic. I think that it may be of value to discuss a certain truth about this whole hype - some people really WANT the world to end, and the philosofurs question of the day is of course WHYYYYYYYYY????? <3<3<3
More Info:
http://www.wecanknow.com/
http://www.familyradio.com/
On Leap day: What is time.
General | Posted 15 years agoWhat is time.
Time is just an delusion in human nature to keep track of progress that man made in history; and it is created through the measurement of our rotating solar system. This; however, is insufficient to measure time as if it exists.
Space-time continuum is just a variable concept that we draw from observations from orbiting telescopes. Space is too much larger than we can ever observe. It is a rapidly expanding volume, growing outward in all directions. It's true speed of expansion is unknown because the size of the universe can't be estimated correctly. However, through measurement of the stars in nearby galaxies we discovered the fact that objects observed to get farther away as "time" passed and those space objects which were further away tended to move away faster than those that were closer to earth.
This suggests that space not only grows but stretches from the center outward. By the theory of space-time continuum light years are also derived from a deluded human perspective on time. To measure time is impossible. If one was to travel to the border of the universe, he would have to at least twice as fast as it expands and on his travel back 3 times the speed in order to actually get back roughly at the same time. (which would be about the moment you left)
Universal time can be based on the expansion of space; however, we can't know how fast it's expanding without knowing the time based on expansion.
We live in a universally confused world.
Time is just an delusion in human nature to keep track of progress that man made in history; and it is created through the measurement of our rotating solar system. This; however, is insufficient to measure time as if it exists.
Space-time continuum is just a variable concept that we draw from observations from orbiting telescopes. Space is too much larger than we can ever observe. It is a rapidly expanding volume, growing outward in all directions. It's true speed of expansion is unknown because the size of the universe can't be estimated correctly. However, through measurement of the stars in nearby galaxies we discovered the fact that objects observed to get farther away as "time" passed and those space objects which were further away tended to move away faster than those that were closer to earth.
This suggests that space not only grows but stretches from the center outward. By the theory of space-time continuum light years are also derived from a deluded human perspective on time. To measure time is impossible. If one was to travel to the border of the universe, he would have to at least twice as fast as it expands and on his travel back 3 times the speed in order to actually get back roughly at the same time. (which would be about the moment you left)
Universal time can be based on the expansion of space; however, we can't know how fast it's expanding without knowing the time based on expansion.
We live in a universally confused world.
Philosofurs is Created!
General | Posted 16 years agoThank-you for visiting philosofurs, where logic is merely a pencil sketch. Account is now under construction and will be functional in a few days. Feel free to comment and get acquainted.
Thanks,
your host
space_jaggy
Thanks,
your host
space_jaggy